Fellay calls Pope Francis “a genuine modernist” -- Pell Bristles
In this interview Cardinal George Pell comments on the recent meeting of the Council of Cardinals with Francis, the reform of the Roman Curia, and Lefebvrist leader Bishop Fellay's attack on the Pope …More
In this interview Cardinal George Pell comments on the recent meeting of the Council of Cardinals with Francis, the reform of the Roman Curia, and Lefebvrist leader Bishop Fellay's attack on the Pope
Q. Bishop Fellay has denounced Pope Francis as “a genuine modernist”, and charged that while the Church was “a disaster” before he was elected, he is making it “10,000 times worse”. What do you say to this?
A. To put it politely, I think that’s absolute rubbish! Francis said he’s a loyal son of the Church, and his record shows that. He’s very, very concerned for the day-to-day life of the people, and for those who are suffering, those not well off and those in difficult situations. He’s a completely faithful exponent of Christ’s teaching and the Church’s tradition. (GP)
Q. So people like Fellay have completely misread Pope Francis?
A. Yes, it is a gigantic misreading! In actual fact, the Lefebvrists – many of them - have misread the situation for decades. It was to Benedict’s great credit …More
Q. Bishop Fellay has denounced Pope Francis as “a genuine modernist”, and charged that while the Church was “a disaster” before he was elected, he is making it “10,000 times worse”. What do you say to this?
A. To put it politely, I think that’s absolute rubbish! Francis said he’s a loyal son of the Church, and his record shows that. He’s very, very concerned for the day-to-day life of the people, and for those who are suffering, those not well off and those in difficult situations. He’s a completely faithful exponent of Christ’s teaching and the Church’s tradition. (GP)
Q. So people like Fellay have completely misread Pope Francis?
A. Yes, it is a gigantic misreading! In actual fact, the Lefebvrists – many of them - have misread the situation for decades. It was to Benedict’s great credit …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Here we go again. The post conciliar church labeling faithful traditional Catholics as "Lefebvrists." Cardinal Pell uses the strategy of grouping faithful traditional Catholics as right wing nut cases. Cease and desist with this nonsense. I am tired of hearing it. It is traditional groups like SSPX, SSSP, CRNJ, and independents that bring the true liturgy and sacraments to us and we are grateful to …More
Here we go again. The post conciliar church labeling faithful traditional Catholics as "Lefebvrists." Cardinal Pell uses the strategy of grouping faithful traditional Catholics as right wing nut cases. Cease and desist with this nonsense. I am tired of hearing it. It is traditional groups like SSPX, SSSP, CRNJ, and independents that bring the true liturgy and sacraments to us and we are grateful to Our Lord for it.
thelastconvert
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
It is wonderful to hear a Bishop finally speak the truth! The one point for me that is very clear is that this Bishop is not attacking the Chair of Peter but Pope Francis the man. Which to me makes a big difference. It is very easy to see that Pope Francis is a old 1960 religious hippie. Just one among many who started and continue with all this Vatican II mess.
The modernists can't stand the SSSPX because they are a true army of priests who have always followed the true Catholic faith without compromise...where does one find that in these modernists who run the parishes today...all the way up to the Vatican! The job has been done of creating heretic radicals and planting them in all the strtegic positions of power...it is their job to keep it that way..…More
The modernists can't stand the SSSPX because they are a true army of priests who have always followed the true Catholic faith without compromise...where does one find that in these modernists who run the parishes today...all the way up to the Vatican! The job has been done of creating heretic radicals and planting them in all the strtegic positions of power...it is their job to keep it that way..without any interference from the SSPX and the like.
I had dinner the other night with a couple I have known for 35 years--he is a retired MD. They are now in their upper 70's. Loyal, devote, non complaining Catholics, after dinner they went to Holy Hour. Their son is a priest.
The wife told me that she had worked in Birthright for over 40 years and felt insulted that the pope seems to have considered that an obsession. Further, she said that most …More
I had dinner the other night with a couple I have known for 35 years--he is a retired MD. They are now in their upper 70's. Loyal, devote, non complaining Catholics, after dinner they went to Holy Hour. Their son is a priest.
The wife told me that she had worked in Birthright for over 40 years and felt insulted that the pope seems to have considered that an obsession. Further, she said that most of the girls she worked with were poor.
Perhaps Cardinal Pell, a member of the pope's advisers, should try to get the pope to cool it.
The wife told me that she had worked in Birthright for over 40 years and felt insulted that the pope seems to have considered that an obsession. Further, she said that most of the girls she worked with were poor.
Perhaps Cardinal Pell, a member of the pope's advisers, should try to get the pope to cool it.
Prof. Leonard Wessell
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Cardemal Pell's piece is a propagandistic materpiece that disguises reality. The Catholic Church has "prodigal sons (and daughters)" all over the place. The very use of such teminology disguises that to which Bp Fellay was objectively referring. Just check out Michael Voris' series "The Demolition of the Church" and, using Chuirch sources, statistically deduces a Church in demise, even faced with …More
Cardemal Pell's piece is a propagandistic materpiece that disguises reality. The Catholic Church has "prodigal sons (and daughters)" all over the place. The very use of such teminology disguises that to which Bp Fellay was objectively referring. Just check out Michael Voris' series "The Demolition of the Church" and, using Chuirch sources, statistically deduces a Church in demise, even faced with the possiblity of no homegrown American priests in 50 years. This posting is too short for a proper literatry examination of the progandistic machinations of Cardinal Pell. Alas, his literaty style makes serious discussion impossible. I will in abbreviate form examine Bp Fellay's claims.
1. Studies such as that of M. Voris show "scientifically" that the Church of today is a "disaster". One can play with the term, but compared to pre-Vat II days the Church has disasterously suffered in every statsiticval category! Does a "post hoc, ergo hoc" relation between Vat II and today's disaster exist? Bp Fellay thinks so and, with my limited study of the matter, yet with my personal experience, I am of accord. The temporally close connection should be examined for a causal relation, which is what Bp Fellay's society has done.
2. Will Pope Fancis make things "10,000 times worse"? I do not think that the use of "10, 000" can be more than a metaphor meaning something like !a hell of alot". There is no objective way of measuring improvment or catastrophy. Given the disaster I can read in the persons of intelligent Americans, Italians, Spanards and Germans, I hold it to be prima facie plausible that Pope Francis is damaging the Church (that I learned to know) significantly. That all willbe 10,000 times worse is a prediction and can be checked in the future, but a prediction for which some evidence speaks.
3. Is Pope Francis a "modernist"? I am now reading Pope Pius X's "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" on modernism. I have read some discussions of Pius X and his conflict with "modernism". On a priliminary basis I do not find Bp Fellay to be making wild assertions. I would like for him to hold a lecture on modernism. I have read some articles on Pius X and his conflict with modernists making my knowledge limited. Pius X's discussion needs to be interpreted re today and not yesterday. I hold, again on a preliminary examination, that Bp Fellay is not shouting in the dark. I do not like to conclude as such.
4. Please turn to YouTube and look up the video "Catholic and Orthodox Liturgies Compared", 5:19 minutes long. A Moscow Patriachate Good Friday is compared with a "Los Angeles Pontifical Liturgy". If the Catholic pontifical liturgy is representative of Pope Francis (and the Youth Meeting in Rio this year seems to certifiy the validity of the thesis), then Bp Fellay is 100% on the mark. I could not in good conscience attend that pontifical mass in Los Angeles as it appears to me not to be a modernist liturgy, rather a postmodernist blasphemy of the proper way to worship divinity in its sublime transcendence.
1. Studies such as that of M. Voris show "scientifically" that the Church of today is a "disaster". One can play with the term, but compared to pre-Vat II days the Church has disasterously suffered in every statsiticval category! Does a "post hoc, ergo hoc" relation between Vat II and today's disaster exist? Bp Fellay thinks so and, with my limited study of the matter, yet with my personal experience, I am of accord. The temporally close connection should be examined for a causal relation, which is what Bp Fellay's society has done.
2. Will Pope Fancis make things "10,000 times worse"? I do not think that the use of "10, 000" can be more than a metaphor meaning something like !a hell of alot". There is no objective way of measuring improvment or catastrophy. Given the disaster I can read in the persons of intelligent Americans, Italians, Spanards and Germans, I hold it to be prima facie plausible that Pope Francis is damaging the Church (that I learned to know) significantly. That all willbe 10,000 times worse is a prediction and can be checked in the future, but a prediction for which some evidence speaks.
3. Is Pope Francis a "modernist"? I am now reading Pope Pius X's "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" on modernism. I have read some discussions of Pius X and his conflict with "modernism". On a priliminary basis I do not find Bp Fellay to be making wild assertions. I would like for him to hold a lecture on modernism. I have read some articles on Pius X and his conflict with modernists making my knowledge limited. Pius X's discussion needs to be interpreted re today and not yesterday. I hold, again on a preliminary examination, that Bp Fellay is not shouting in the dark. I do not like to conclude as such.
4. Please turn to YouTube and look up the video "Catholic and Orthodox Liturgies Compared", 5:19 minutes long. A Moscow Patriachate Good Friday is compared with a "Los Angeles Pontifical Liturgy". If the Catholic pontifical liturgy is representative of Pope Francis (and the Youth Meeting in Rio this year seems to certifiy the validity of the thesis), then Bp Fellay is 100% on the mark. I could not in good conscience attend that pontifical mass in Los Angeles as it appears to me not to be a modernist liturgy, rather a postmodernist blasphemy of the proper way to worship divinity in its sublime transcendence.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Pope Francis has told atheists that they should "abide by their own consciences."
Is it not reasonable that if atheists are to “abide by their own consciences” then why shouldn't others, including members of the SSPX, do likewise and, indeed, be encouraged to do so? Instead, the SSPX and its members continue to be maligned and ridiculed for simply doing what Pope Francis recommends.
If the society …More
Pope Francis has told atheists that they should "abide by their own consciences."
Is it not reasonable that if atheists are to “abide by their own consciences” then why shouldn't others, including members of the SSPX, do likewise and, indeed, be encouraged to do so? Instead, the SSPX and its members continue to be maligned and ridiculed for simply doing what Pope Francis recommends.
If the society sincerely believes that teachings of the Second Vatican Council are in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium. (eg. the doctrine on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae #2), on the Church (Lumen Gentium #8), on ecumenism (Lumen Gentium #8; Unitatis Redintegratio #3), and on collegiality (Lumen Gentium #22), then should they not also follow their own consciences in the same way that the pope says atheists should follow theirs?
Furthermore, who is he (the pope) to judge?
Is it not reasonable that if atheists are to “abide by their own consciences” then why shouldn't others, including members of the SSPX, do likewise and, indeed, be encouraged to do so? Instead, the SSPX and its members continue to be maligned and ridiculed for simply doing what Pope Francis recommends.
If the society sincerely believes that teachings of the Second Vatican Council are in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium. (eg. the doctrine on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae #2), on the Church (Lumen Gentium #8), on ecumenism (Lumen Gentium #8; Unitatis Redintegratio #3), and on collegiality (Lumen Gentium #22), then should they not also follow their own consciences in the same way that the pope says atheists should follow theirs?
Furthermore, who is he (the pope) to judge?
Ben Martin
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Boy words from Chief Modernist cardinal George Pell--is the good reference source??. That is a strong agrument to defend the Modernist Francis--birds of a feather flock together.
Wake up folks these guys are doing the work of the devil and get good Catholics to believe that they have to be obedient to their errors.More
Boy words from Chief Modernist cardinal George Pell--is the good reference source??. That is a strong agrument to defend the Modernist Francis--birds of a feather flock together.
Wake up folks these guys are doing the work of the devil and get good Catholics to believe that they have to be obedient to their errors.
Wake up folks these guys are doing the work of the devil and get good Catholics to believe that they have to be obedient to their errors.
Get to the bottom of the controversy!!!!! Bishop Fellay did not refuse and they did respond. It was the Parts of Vat. II to which they could not conform. BY THE WAY!!!! There are many other Cardinals and Bishops who are questioning Vat.II in the same way. How come it is pardonable for some and condemning for others?????
CONCLUSION: Give credit where credit is due...stop being so envious of a thriving …More
Get to the bottom of the controversy!!!!! Bishop Fellay did not refuse and they did respond. It was the Parts of Vat. II to which they could not conform. BY THE WAY!!!! There are many other Cardinals and Bishops who are questioning Vat.II in the same way. How come it is pardonable for some and condemning for others?????
CONCLUSION: Give credit where credit is due...stop being so envious of a thriving group while Vat.II Church is sinking. Bishop LeFebvre and Pope Pius XII were great friends....That should settle the controversy..(When is Pope Pius XII going to be canonized???)
You can pardon the Lutherans, Anglicans, Jews and islamists.....How come you can't pardon your own Loyal Sons???????
CONCLUSION: Give credit where credit is due...stop being so envious of a thriving group while Vat.II Church is sinking. Bishop LeFebvre and Pope Pius XII were great friends....That should settle the controversy..(When is Pope Pius XII going to be canonized???)
You can pardon the Lutherans, Anglicans, Jews and islamists.....How come you can't pardon your own Loyal Sons???????